Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
. ..
ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a lot of
good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory lending practices,


There were not predatory lending practices. The poor declining inner-city
was a bad investment. The poor could not put up the 20% down and even if
they could they could not make the payments. In the olden days the banks
had to carry the paper they wrote a loan on. They wanted to be paid for the
loan. But since the poor could not normally do this, the Federal Government
required Fannie Mae to buy the loans. Now the banks could loan money to the
bad credit risk, make money and not worry about a bad loan. F&F then
started packaging the bad and good loans and selling them, so they could
make more money. The Fed's were really behind F&F but if the officers of
F&F showed a large profit, they got large bonuses. They even went so far to
lie to get an extra $100 million in bonus money. Government settled for
$3.5 million and dropped charges. Sad. Then the smart people of wall
street, seeing a huge pool of profit to be made without risk, jumped on
these bad, government guaranteed loans. And since F&F exerted no real
oversight, the pool of inflated bad loans grew immensely. And now since the
government created this mess, by guaranteeing bad loans and no oversight on
how bad the loans and inflated prices they caused. We have a financial
crisis. And what is scary, is the same people who caused this mess are
supposed to recue us. Scarier than Holloween.



Answering harrys opposite posts with a rational, real idea? How silly..
If harry says something, you can bet it is bullpoo...

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:12:53 -0400, BAR wrote:

Boater wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
. ..
...commentary from conservative pundit George Will:

WASHINGTON -- Time was, the Baltimore Orioles manager was Earl
Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when cranky,
as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are you going
to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully, only one
debate to go, that is the question about John McCain's campaign.

In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency,
McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first
serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican. Before
Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling what might
be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less
that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person.

This, McCain and ++his female Sancho Panza** say, is
demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago, such as
with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. But the
McCain-Palin charges have come just as the Obama campaign is
benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many
millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes
containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k)
and other retirement accounts -- telling each household its
portion of the nearly $2 trillion that Americans' accounts have
recently shed. In this context, the McCain-Palin campaign's
attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's Chicago
associations seem surreal -- or, as a British politician once
said about criticism he was receiving, "like being savaged by a
dead sheep."

Recently Obama noted -- perhaps to torment and provoke
conservatives -- that McCain's rhetoric about Wall Street's
"greed" and "casino culture" amounted to "talking like Jesse
Jackson." What fun: one African-American Chicago politician
distancing himself from another African-American Chicago
politician by associating McCain with him.

After their enjoyable 2006 congressional elections, Democrats
eagerly anticipated that 2008 would provide a second election
in which a chaotic Iraq would be at the center of voters'
minds. Today they are glad that has not happened. The success
of the surge in Iraq, for which McCain justly claims much
credit, is one reason why foreign policy has receded to the
margins of the electorate's mind, thereby diminishing the
subject with which McCain is most comfortable and which is
Obama's largest vulnerability.

Tuesday night, McCain, seeking traction in inhospitable
economic terrain, said that the $700 billion -- perhaps it is
$800 billion, or more; one loses track of this fast-moving
target -- bailout plan is too small. He proposes several
hundred billions more for his American Homeownership Resurgence
-- you cannot have too many surges -- Plan. Under it, the
government would buy mortgages that homeowners cannot -- or
perhaps would just rather not -- pay, and replace them with
cheaper ones. When he proposed this, conservatives
participating in MSNBC's "dial group" wrenched their dials in a
wrist-spraining spasm of disapproval.

Still, it may be politically prudent for McCain to throw
caution, and billions, to the wind. Obama is competitive in so
many states that President Bush carried in 2004 -- including
Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa,
Colorado and New Mexico -- it is not eccentric to think he
could win at least 350 of the 538 electoral votes.

If that seems startling, that is only because the 2000 and 2004
elections were won with 271 and 286, respectively. In the 25
elections 1900-1996, the winners averaged 402.6. This, even
though the 1900 and 1904 elections -- before Arizona, New
Mexico and Oklahoma attained statehood, and before the size of
the House was fixed at 435 members in 1911 -- allocated only
447 and 476 electoral votes, respectively. The 12 elections
from 1912 through 1956, before Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood,
allocated only 531.

In the 25 twentieth-century elections, only three candidates
won with fewer than 300 -- McKinley with 292 in 1900, Wilson
with 277 in 1916 and Carter with 297 in 1976. President Harry
Truman won 303 in 1948 even though Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat
candidacy won 39 that otherwise would have gone to Truman.
After John Kennedy won in 1960 with just 303, the average
winning total in the next nine elections, up to the 2000
cliffhanger, was 421.4.

In 1987, on the eve of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's third
victory, the head of her Conservative Party told a visiting
columnist: "Someday, Labour will win an election. Our job is to
hold on until they are sane." Republicans, winners of seven of
the last 10 presidential elections, had better hope they have
held on long enough.




++Sarah Palin is Sancho Panza...priceless.

Sancho was the illiterate sidekick of Don Quixote.
What's you opinion of ACORN?


ACORN has nothing to do with George Will's column or his
absolutely priceless comparison of Sarah Palin to the illiterate
Sancho Panza, who accompanied the insane Don Quixote.

ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a
lot of good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory
lending practices, in easing voter registration regulations, and
in pushing for living wages, all of which I support. I'm aware of
some of its problems, obviously, but whatever it has done wrong
pales in comparison to the horrors perpetrated on this country by
Big Oil, Halliburton, ENRON and Bush-Cheney.

Sarah Palin *is* Sancho Panza...I love it.
ACORN should go the way of Aurthur Anderson. ACORN is a corrupt
organization.

Thta's quite a stretch. Acorn obviously has some members who need to
be weeded out, but I don't think you can condem the whole organization
for that. Lets see how the organization handles the problem, shall we?
I'm willing to wait and see if they acknowlege that some of their
members went far astray, and clean house. There is no indication that
leaders of the organization asked or expected anyone to do anything
wrong. It looks more like a some fol;ks took it upon themselves in an
extremely wrongheaded effort.


A pattern of corruption and alleged criminal activity is a stretch?
You have to be kidding. There are people who worked for who are
ACORN in jail, serving probation, paid fines for their criminal
conduct while performing these so-called get out the vote drives.
It's all in the public record.

ACORN is a criminal enterprise hell bent on subverting the election
laws and disenfranchising voters who follow the the law.



Pretty funny coming from Bertiepoop, an unabashed supporter of the
Bush-Cheney Criminal Enterprise.

How much money did your buddies a Ullico and you have to disgorge in
illegal profits form illegal stock purchases and sales? Talk about
screwing the working man.



Nice try, schitt-for-brains, and just another example of your not
knowing what you are talking about. Oh...no one at ULLICO was running
the federal government or running for high federal office or
participating in the Bush-Cheney criminalities...

But they were screwing working stiff union guys out of their hard earned
money.

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:12:53 -0400, BAR wrote:

Boater wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
. ..
...commentary from conservative pundit George Will:

WASHINGTON -- Time was, the Baltimore Orioles manager was
Earl Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when
cranky, as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are
you going to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully,
only one debate to go, that is the question about John
McCain's campaign.

In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency,
McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first
serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican. Before
Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling what might
be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less
that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person.

This, McCain and ++his female Sancho Panza** say, is
demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago, such as
with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. But the
McCain-Palin charges have come just as the Obama campaign is
benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many
millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes
containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k)
and other retirement accounts -- telling each household its
portion of the nearly $2 trillion that Americans' accounts
have recently shed. In this context, the McCain-Palin
campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's
Chicago associations seem surreal -- or, as a British
politician once said about criticism he was receiving, "like
being savaged by a dead sheep."

Recently Obama noted -- perhaps to torment and provoke
conservatives -- that McCain's rhetoric about Wall Street's
"greed" and "casino culture" amounted to "talking like Jesse
Jackson." What fun: one African-American Chicago politician
distancing himself from another African-American Chicago
politician by associating McCain with him.

After their enjoyable 2006 congressional elections, Democrats
eagerly anticipated that 2008 would provide a second election
in which a chaotic Iraq would be at the center of voters'
minds. Today they are glad that has not happened. The success
of the surge in Iraq, for which McCain justly claims much
credit, is one reason why foreign policy has receded to the
margins of the electorate's mind, thereby diminishing the
subject with which McCain is most comfortable and which is
Obama's largest vulnerability.

Tuesday night, McCain, seeking traction in inhospitable
economic terrain, said that the $700 billion -- perhaps it is
$800 billion, or more; one loses track of this fast-moving
target -- bailout plan is too small. He proposes several
hundred billions more for his American Homeownership
Resurgence -- you cannot have too many surges -- Plan. Under
it, the government would buy mortgages that homeowners cannot
-- or perhaps would just rather not -- pay, and replace them
with cheaper ones. When he proposed this, conservatives
participating in MSNBC's "dial group" wrenched their dials in
a wrist-spraining spasm of disapproval.

Still, it may be politically prudent for McCain to throw
caution, and billions, to the wind. Obama is competitive in so
many states that President Bush carried in 2004 -- including
Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa,
Colorado and New Mexico -- it is not eccentric to think he
could win at least 350 of the 538 electoral votes.

If that seems startling, that is only because the 2000 and
2004 elections were won with 271 and 286, respectively. In the
25 elections 1900-1996, the winners averaged 402.6. This, even
though the 1900 and 1904 elections -- before Arizona, New
Mexico and Oklahoma attained statehood, and before the size of
the House was fixed at 435 members in 1911 -- allocated only
447 and 476 electoral votes, respectively. The 12 elections
from 1912 through 1956, before Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood,
allocated only 531.

In the 25 twentieth-century elections, only three candidates
won with fewer than 300 -- McKinley with 292 in 1900, Wilson
with 277 in 1916 and Carter with 297 in 1976. President Harry
Truman won 303 in 1948 even though Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat
candidacy won 39 that otherwise would have gone to Truman.
After John Kennedy won in 1960 with just 303, the average
winning total in the next nine elections, up to the 2000
cliffhanger, was 421.4.

In 1987, on the eve of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's
third victory, the head of her Conservative Party told a
visiting columnist: "Someday, Labour will win an election. Our
job is to hold on until they are sane." Republicans, winners
of seven of the last 10 presidential elections, had better
hope they have held on long enough.




++Sarah Palin is Sancho Panza...priceless.

Sancho was the illiterate sidekick of Don Quixote.
What's you opinion of ACORN?


ACORN has nothing to do with George Will's column or his
absolutely priceless comparison of Sarah Palin to the illiterate
Sancho Panza, who accompanied the insane Don Quixote.

ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a
lot of good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory
lending practices, in easing voter registration regulations, and
in pushing for living wages, all of which I support. I'm aware
of some of its problems, obviously, but whatever it has done
wrong pales in comparison to the horrors perpetrated on this
country by Big Oil, Halliburton, ENRON and Bush-Cheney.

Sarah Palin *is* Sancho Panza...I love it.
ACORN should go the way of Aurthur Anderson. ACORN is a corrupt
organization.

Thta's quite a stretch. Acorn obviously has some members who need to
be weeded out, but I don't think you can condem the whole
organization
for that. Lets see how the organization handles the problem, shall
we?
I'm willing to wait and see if they acknowlege that some of their
members went far astray, and clean house. There is no indication that
leaders of the organization asked or expected anyone to do anything
wrong. It looks more like a some fol;ks took it upon themselves in an
extremely wrongheaded effort.


A pattern of corruption and alleged criminal activity is a stretch?
You have to be kidding. There are people who worked for who are
ACORN in jail, serving probation, paid fines for their criminal
conduct while performing these so-called get out the vote drives.
It's all in the public record.

ACORN is a criminal enterprise hell bent on subverting the election
laws and disenfranchising voters who follow the the law.



Pretty funny coming from Bertiepoop, an unabashed supporter of the
Bush-Cheney Criminal Enterprise.

How much money did your buddies a Ullico and you have to disgorge in
illegal profits form illegal stock purchases and sales? Talk about
screwing the working man.



Nice try, schitt-for-brains, and just another example of your not
knowing what you are talking about. Oh...no one at ULLICO was running
the federal government or running for high federal office or
participating in the Bush-Cheney criminalities...

But they were screwing working stiff union guys out of their hard earned
money.



Wrong again, schitt-for-brains.

..

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:16:32 -0400, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:12:53 -0400, BAR wrote:

Boater wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
. ..
...commentary from conservative pundit George Will:

WASHINGTON -- Time was, the Baltimore Orioles manager was Earl
Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when cranky,
as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are you going
to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully, only one
debate to go, that is the question about John McCain's campaign.

In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency,
McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first
serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican. Before
Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling what might
be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less
that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person.

This, McCain and ++his female Sancho Panza** say, is
demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago, such as
with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. But the
McCain-Palin charges have come just as the Obama campaign is
benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many
millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes
containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k)
and other retirement accounts -- telling each household its
portion of the nearly $2 trillion that Americans' accounts have
recently shed. In this context, the McCain-Palin campaign's
attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's Chicago
associations seem surreal -- or, as a British politician once
said about criticism he was receiving, "like being savaged by a
dead sheep."

Recently Obama noted -- perhaps to torment and provoke
conservatives -- that McCain's rhetoric about Wall Street's
"greed" and "casino culture" amounted to "talking like Jesse
Jackson." What fun: one African-American Chicago politician
distancing himself from another African-American Chicago
politician by associating McCain with him.

After their enjoyable 2006 congressional elections, Democrats
eagerly anticipated that 2008 would provide a second election
in which a chaotic Iraq would be at the center of voters'
minds. Today they are glad that has not happened. The success
of the surge in Iraq, for which McCain justly claims much
credit, is one reason why foreign policy has receded to the
margins of the electorate's mind, thereby diminishing the
subject with which McCain is most comfortable and which is
Obama's largest vulnerability.

Tuesday night, McCain, seeking traction in inhospitable
economic terrain, said that the $700 billion -- perhaps it is
$800 billion, or more; one loses track of this fast-moving
target -- bailout plan is too small. He proposes several
hundred billions more for his American Homeownership Resurgence
-- you cannot have too many surges -- Plan. Under it, the
government would buy mortgages that homeowners cannot -- or
perhaps would just rather not -- pay, and replace them with
cheaper ones. When he proposed this, conservatives
participating in MSNBC's "dial group" wrenched their dials in a
wrist-spraining spasm of disapproval.

Still, it may be politically prudent for McCain to throw
caution, and billions, to the wind. Obama is competitive in so
many states that President Bush carried in 2004 -- including
Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa,
Colorado and New Mexico -- it is not eccentric to think he
could win at least 350 of the 538 electoral votes.

If that seems startling, that is only because the 2000 and 2004
elections were won with 271 and 286, respectively. In the 25
elections 1900-1996, the winners averaged 402.6. This, even
though the 1900 and 1904 elections -- before Arizona, New
Mexico and Oklahoma attained statehood, and before the size of
the House was fixed at 435 members in 1911 -- allocated only
447 and 476 electoral votes, respectively. The 12 elections
from 1912 through 1956, before Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood,
allocated only 531.

In the 25 twentieth-century elections, only three candidates
won with fewer than 300 -- McKinley with 292 in 1900, Wilson
with 277 in 1916 and Carter with 297 in 1976. President Harry
Truman won 303 in 1948 even though Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat
candidacy won 39 that otherwise would have gone to Truman.
After John Kennedy won in 1960 with just 303, the average
winning total in the next nine elections, up to the 2000
cliffhanger, was 421.4.

In 1987, on the eve of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's third
victory, the head of her Conservative Party told a visiting
columnist: "Someday, Labour will win an election. Our job is to
hold on until they are sane." Republicans, winners of seven of
the last 10 presidential elections, had better hope they have
held on long enough.




++Sarah Palin is Sancho Panza...priceless.

Sancho was the illiterate sidekick of Don Quixote.
What's you opinion of ACORN?

ACORN has nothing to do with George Will's column or his
absolutely priceless comparison of Sarah Palin to the illiterate
Sancho Panza, who accompanied the insane Don Quixote.

ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a
lot of good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory
lending practices, in easing voter registration regulations, and
in pushing for living wages, all of which I support. I'm aware of
some of its problems, obviously, but whatever it has done wrong
pales in comparison to the horrors perpetrated on this country by
Big Oil, Halliburton, ENRON and Bush-Cheney.

Sarah Palin *is* Sancho Panza...I love it.
ACORN should go the way of Aurthur Anderson. ACORN is a corrupt
organization.
Thta's quite a stretch. Acorn obviously has some members who need to
be weeded out, but I don't think you can condem the whole organization
for that. Lets see how the organization handles the problem, shall we?
I'm willing to wait and see if they acknowlege that some of their
members went far astray, and clean house. There is no indication that
leaders of the organization asked or expected anyone to do anything
wrong. It looks more like a some fol;ks took it upon themselves in an
extremely wrongheaded effort.

A pattern of corruption and alleged criminal activity is a stretch?
You have to be kidding. There are people who worked for who are
ACORN in jail, serving probation, paid fines for their criminal
conduct while performing these so-called get out the vote drives.
It's all in the public record.

ACORN is a criminal enterprise hell bent on subverting the election
laws and disenfranchising voters who follow the the law.

Oh, you mean just like the government of the United States? Many
government officials have ended up in prison, or will in the future.
That isn't an argument for condeming the institution itself.

Private enterprises are treated differently that governments.

ACRON is a criminal enterprise. ACORN is corrupt and is involved in a
pattern of corrpution and criminal behavior. You can only use the we
didn't know what our subordinates were doing for about a minute or two
before you are deemed incompetent.


Are you offering up your expert opinion as a high school dropout or an
unsuccessful Marine?

Nice try Krause.

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:16:32 -0400, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:12:53 -0400, BAR wrote:

Boater wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
. ..
...commentary from conservative pundit George Will:

WASHINGTON -- Time was, the Baltimore Orioles manager was
Earl Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when
cranky, as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are
you going to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully,
only one debate to go, that is the question about John
McCain's campaign.

In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency,
McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first
serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican. Before
Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling what might
be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less
that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person.

This, McCain and ++his female Sancho Panza** say, is
demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago, such as
with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. But the
McCain-Palin charges have come just as the Obama campaign is
benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many
millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes
containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k)
and other retirement accounts -- telling each household its
portion of the nearly $2 trillion that Americans' accounts
have recently shed. In this context, the McCain-Palin
campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's
Chicago associations seem surreal -- or, as a British
politician once said about criticism he was receiving, "like
being savaged by a dead sheep."

Recently Obama noted -- perhaps to torment and provoke
conservatives -- that McCain's rhetoric about Wall Street's
"greed" and "casino culture" amounted to "talking like Jesse
Jackson." What fun: one African-American Chicago politician
distancing himself from another African-American Chicago
politician by associating McCain with him.

After their enjoyable 2006 congressional elections, Democrats
eagerly anticipated that 2008 would provide a second election
in which a chaotic Iraq would be at the center of voters'
minds. Today they are glad that has not happened. The success
of the surge in Iraq, for which McCain justly claims much
credit, is one reason why foreign policy has receded to the
margins of the electorate's mind, thereby diminishing the
subject with which McCain is most comfortable and which is
Obama's largest vulnerability.

Tuesday night, McCain, seeking traction in inhospitable
economic terrain, said that the $700 billion -- perhaps it is
$800 billion, or more; one loses track of this fast-moving
target -- bailout plan is too small. He proposes several
hundred billions more for his American Homeownership
Resurgence -- you cannot have too many surges -- Plan. Under
it, the government would buy mortgages that homeowners cannot
-- or perhaps would just rather not -- pay, and replace them
with cheaper ones. When he proposed this, conservatives
participating in MSNBC's "dial group" wrenched their dials in
a wrist-spraining spasm of disapproval.

Still, it may be politically prudent for McCain to throw
caution, and billions, to the wind. Obama is competitive in so
many states that President Bush carried in 2004 -- including
Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa,
Colorado and New Mexico -- it is not eccentric to think he
could win at least 350 of the 538 electoral votes.

If that seems startling, that is only because the 2000 and
2004 elections were won with 271 and 286, respectively. In the
25 elections 1900-1996, the winners averaged 402.6. This, even
though the 1900 and 1904 elections -- before Arizona, New
Mexico and Oklahoma attained statehood, and before the size of
the House was fixed at 435 members in 1911 -- allocated only
447 and 476 electoral votes, respectively. The 12 elections
from 1912 through 1956, before Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood,
allocated only 531.

In the 25 twentieth-century elections, only three candidates
won with fewer than 300 -- McKinley with 292 in 1900, Wilson
with 277 in 1916 and Carter with 297 in 1976. President Harry
Truman won 303 in 1948 even though Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat
candidacy won 39 that otherwise would have gone to Truman.
After John Kennedy won in 1960 with just 303, the average
winning total in the next nine elections, up to the 2000
cliffhanger, was 421.4.

In 1987, on the eve of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's
third victory, the head of her Conservative Party told a
visiting columnist: "Someday, Labour will win an election. Our
job is to hold on until they are sane." Republicans, winners
of seven of the last 10 presidential elections, had better
hope they have held on long enough.




++Sarah Palin is Sancho Panza...priceless.

Sancho was the illiterate sidekick of Don Quixote.
What's you opinion of ACORN?

ACORN has nothing to do with George Will's column or his
absolutely priceless comparison of Sarah Palin to the illiterate
Sancho Panza, who accompanied the insane Don Quixote.

ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a
lot of good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory
lending practices, in easing voter registration regulations, and
in pushing for living wages, all of which I support. I'm aware
of some of its problems, obviously, but whatever it has done
wrong pales in comparison to the horrors perpetrated on this
country by Big Oil, Halliburton, ENRON and Bush-Cheney.

Sarah Palin *is* Sancho Panza...I love it.
ACORN should go the way of Aurthur Anderson. ACORN is a corrupt
organization.
Thta's quite a stretch. Acorn obviously has some members who need to
be weeded out, but I don't think you can condem the whole
organization
for that. Lets see how the organization handles the problem, shall
we?
I'm willing to wait and see if they acknowlege that some of their
members went far astray, and clean house. There is no indication that
leaders of the organization asked or expected anyone to do anything
wrong. It looks more like a some fol;ks took it upon themselves in an
extremely wrongheaded effort.

A pattern of corruption and alleged criminal activity is a stretch?
You have to be kidding. There are people who worked for who are
ACORN in jail, serving probation, paid fines for their criminal
conduct while performing these so-called get out the vote drives.
It's all in the public record.

ACORN is a criminal enterprise hell bent on subverting the election
laws and disenfranchising voters who follow the the law.

Oh, you mean just like the government of the United States? Many
government officials have ended up in prison, or will in the future.
That isn't an argument for condeming the institution itself.

Private enterprises are treated differently that governments.

ACRON is a criminal enterprise. ACORN is corrupt and is involved in a
pattern of corrpution and criminal behavior. You can only use the we
didn't know what our subordinates were doing for about a minute or
two before you are deemed incompetent.


Are you offering up your expert opinion as a high school dropout or an
unsuccessful Marine?

Nice try Krause.


Well, isn't that what you are?

wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:25:56 -0400, BAR wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:16:32 -0400, BAR wrote:


Private enterprises are treated differently that governments.

ACRON is a criminal enterprise.

Really? What judge, jury and court decided that?

Check the court records in just about every jurisdiction they operate in.

ACORN is corrupt and is involved in a
pattern of corrpution and criminal behavior.

Facts not in evidence, your honor.

Check the court records in just about every jurisdiction they operate in.

You can only use the we
didn't know what our subordinates were doing for about a minute or two
before you are deemed incompetent.

We are talking about ACORN, not the Bush Administration.


Yes, ACORN, the corrupt and criminal organization that pays people cash
and cigarette to register multiples in the same county and state.

Yes, ACORN, the same people who turned in a registration form for a cat.

Yes, ACORN, the same people who turned in registrations for the entire
Dallas Cowboys offense in Nevada.

Unless you have been living in a cage for the last 6 months you are just
playing stupid with respect to ACORN and voter fraud.

Each illegally registered voter diminishes your franchise to vote. Don't
you remember all of those screaming about being disenfranchised? It is a
two way street.

Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:25:56 -0400, BAR wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:16:32 -0400, BAR wrote:


Private enterprises are treated differently that governments.

ACRON is a criminal enterprise.

Really? What judge, jury and court decided that?

ACORN is corrupt and is involved in a pattern of corrpution and
criminal behavior.

Facts not in evidence, your honor.

You can only use the we didn't know what our subordinates were doing
for about a minute or two before you are deemed incompetent.

We are talking about ACORN, not the Bush Administration.



Bertiepoop doesn't like talking about the incredible amount of
corruption, fraud and criminal activities of the Bush Administration.

If you want to turn the conversation to corruption, fraud and criminal
activities in administrations. You cite instances in the Bush
Administration and I will cite instances in the Clinton Administration.

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:16:32 -0400, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:12:53 -0400, BAR wrote:

Boater wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
. ..
...commentary from conservative pundit George Will:

WASHINGTON -- Time was, the Baltimore Orioles manager was
Earl Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when
cranky, as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are
you going to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully,
only one debate to go, that is the question about John
McCain's campaign.

In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency,
McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the
first serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican.
Before Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling
what might be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument.
It is less that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad
person.

This, McCain and ++his female Sancho Panza** say, is
demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago, such
as with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. But the
McCain-Palin charges have come just as the Obama campaign is
benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many
millions of American households are gingerly opening
envelopes containing reports of the third-quarter losses in
their 401(k) and other retirement accounts -- telling each
household its portion of the nearly $2 trillion that
Americans' accounts have recently shed. In this context, the
McCain-Palin campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on
Obama's Chicago associations seem surreal -- or, as a British
politician once said about criticism he was receiving, "like
being savaged by a dead sheep."

Recently Obama noted -- perhaps to torment and provoke
conservatives -- that McCain's rhetoric about Wall Street's
"greed" and "casino culture" amounted to "talking like Jesse
Jackson." What fun: one African-American Chicago politician
distancing himself from another African-American Chicago
politician by associating McCain with him.

After their enjoyable 2006 congressional elections, Democrats
eagerly anticipated that 2008 would provide a second election
in which a chaotic Iraq would be at the center of voters'
minds. Today they are glad that has not happened. The success
of the surge in Iraq, for which McCain justly claims much
credit, is one reason why foreign policy has receded to the
margins of the electorate's mind, thereby diminishing the
subject with which McCain is most comfortable and which is
Obama's largest vulnerability.

Tuesday night, McCain, seeking traction in inhospitable
economic terrain, said that the $700 billion -- perhaps it is
$800 billion, or more; one loses track of this fast-moving
target -- bailout plan is too small. He proposes several
hundred billions more for his American Homeownership
Resurgence -- you cannot have too many surges -- Plan. Under
it, the government would buy mortgages that homeowners cannot
-- or perhaps would just rather not -- pay, and replace them
with cheaper ones. When he proposed this, conservatives
participating in MSNBC's "dial group" wrenched their dials in
a wrist-spraining spasm of disapproval.

Still, it may be politically prudent for McCain to throw
caution, and billions, to the wind. Obama is competitive in
so many states that President Bush carried in 2004 --
including Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana,
Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico -- it is not eccentric to think
he could win at least 350 of the 538 electoral votes.

If that seems startling, that is only because the 2000 and
2004 elections were won with 271 and 286, respectively. In
the 25 elections 1900-1996, the winners averaged 402.6. This,
even though the 1900 and 1904 elections -- before Arizona,
New Mexico and Oklahoma attained statehood, and before the
size of the House was fixed at 435 members in 1911 --
allocated only 447 and 476 electoral votes, respectively. The
12 elections from 1912 through 1956, before Hawaiian and
Alaskan statehood, allocated only 531.

In the 25 twentieth-century elections, only three candidates
won with fewer than 300 -- McKinley with 292 in 1900, Wilson
with 277 in 1916 and Carter with 297 in 1976. President Harry
Truman won 303 in 1948 even though Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat
candidacy won 39 that otherwise would have gone to Truman.
After John Kennedy won in 1960 with just 303, the average
winning total in the next nine elections, up to the 2000
cliffhanger, was 421.4.

In 1987, on the eve of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's
third victory, the head of her Conservative Party told a
visiting columnist: "Someday, Labour will win an election.
Our job is to hold on until they are sane." Republicans,
winners of seven of the last 10 presidential elections, had
better hope they have held on long enough.




++Sarah Palin is Sancho Panza...priceless.

Sancho was the illiterate sidekick of Don Quixote.
What's you opinion of ACORN?

ACORN has nothing to do with George Will's column or his
absolutely priceless comparison of Sarah Palin to the
illiterate Sancho Panza, who accompanied the insane Don Quixote.

ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a
lot of good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory
lending practices, in easing voter registration regulations,
and in pushing for living wages, all of which I support. I'm
aware of some of its problems, obviously, but whatever it has
done wrong pales in comparison to the horrors perpetrated on
this country by Big Oil, Halliburton, ENRON and Bush-Cheney.

Sarah Palin *is* Sancho Panza...I love it.
ACORN should go the way of Aurthur Anderson. ACORN is a corrupt
organization.
Thta's quite a stretch. Acorn obviously has some members who need to
be weeded out, but I don't think you can condem the whole
organization
for that. Lets see how the organization handles the problem,
shall we?
I'm willing to wait and see if they acknowlege that some of their
members went far astray, and clean house. There is no indication
that
leaders of the organization asked or expected anyone to do anything
wrong. It looks more like a some fol;ks took it upon themselves
in an
extremely wrongheaded effort.

A pattern of corruption and alleged criminal activity is a
stretch? You have to be kidding. There are people who worked for
who are ACORN in jail, serving probation, paid fines for their
criminal conduct while performing these so-called get out the vote
drives. It's all in the public record.

ACORN is a criminal enterprise hell bent on subverting the
election laws and disenfranchising voters who follow the the law.

Oh, you mean just like the government of the United States? Many
government officials have ended up in prison, or will in the future.
That isn't an argument for condeming the institution itself.

Private enterprises are treated differently that governments.

ACRON is a criminal enterprise. ACORN is corrupt and is involved in
a pattern of corrpution and criminal behavior. You can only use the
we didn't know what our subordinates were doing for about a minute
or two before you are deemed incompetent.


Are you offering up your expert opinion as a high school dropout or
an unsuccessful Marine?

Nice try Krause.


Well, isn't that what you are?

No. High school graduate, never finished college. I have an honorable
discharge from the USMC after serving a full six year contract. And, I
have the documentation to prove it.

Can you prove you have your Yale degree?

Can you prove you have a Dr. Dr. Wife?

Can you prove you have a 36' Zimmerman like Lobsta' boat?

Can you prove you made many hundreds of thousands of dollars on
sweetheart stock deals while your were working for Ullico?

Can you prove you that you ever worked for anyone running for Congress?

BAR wrote:


No. High school graduate, never finished college. I have an honorable
discharge from the USMC after serving a full six year contract. And, I
have the documentation to prove it.


Well, I'm happy you were graduated from high school Must have been a
really crappy school, or there were no serious examinations required for
a diploma. Six years in the Marines and you never got an overseas
posting? Why bother?



Can you prove you have your Yale degree?

Can you prove you have a Dr. Dr. Wife?

Can you prove you have a 36' Zimmerman like Lobsta' boat?

Can you prove you made many hundreds of thousands of dollars on
sweetheart stock deals while your were working for Ullico?

Can you prove you that you ever worked for anyone running for Congress?


A. Sure

B. If the gods are willing, my wife will be a doctor sometime in 2009.
Such accomplishments take time when you are working full-time.

C. Sure

D. I never made or claimed to make a dollar on a "sweetheart" stock
deal. I don't know where you got that idea.

E. Sure


But I feel no need to "prove" anything to you or any other right-wing
trashmeister or, in fact, anyone else.

Don't like it? Stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

Have a nice day out there in Doodyville.